| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael A(dot) Schulte" <michael(dot)schulte(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ExclusiveLock and Python |
| Date: | 2003-02-28 14:05:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4197.1046441156@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Michael A. Schulte" <michael(dot)schulte(at)sun(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Offhand I think this is only used to implement waits associated with
>> SELECT FOR UPDATE row locking --- all other locks are on tables or
>> table-like objects.
> What about two processes updating the same row?
Right, that case is also a row lock.
> I thougth
> PostGres locks the row in this case and this would also
> be reflected as an entry in pg_locks with mode
> ExclusiveLock.
There's no pg_locks entry for a row lock.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Perrin | 2003-02-28 15:01:18 | Re: postgres access log file |
| Previous Message | Fouad Fezzi | 2003-02-28 13:55:02 | Re: GRANT access on table fields |